A Different Type of Dypsis Lanceolata??

[Phil]

Group,

I wanted to show you a Dypsis "species" we've been growing at the nursery and ask for input. Seeds came in as a Dypsis lanceolata, but they are not the regular one we are used to. The base of the stem and the crown shaft area are a bit hairy and the color is a red-brown, as opposed to the typical smooth green. Another very interesting thing is that this plant is much faster than the regular lanceolata and takes more sun. I've gotten this feedback from customers who are growing it. Whether it's a "variety" or a hybrid is unclear to me at this time. But, it is different. A few on this discussion forum have coined the name "Dypsis lanceoNADA" to clarify that it's not the usual one. What do you think?

Phil

[richnorm]

I have just the one Dypsis lanceolata which I grew from RPS seed. Looks just like your's with the colour and is a similar size. I had noticed it was a little different to a small group of plants I saw in a hot house but assumed it was variation and growing conditions as I have seen no other small plants. Seems to be a good strong grower, so much so that I put it in the ground this spring as a 50cm plant. Really I'm slightly shocked that it's even alive in my climate.

cheers

Richard

[richnorm]

Here's a photo. It brown tipped a bit this winter when we had one of the coldest days in decades but is clearly quite a trouper with a cool tolerance close to baronii.

[avb]

All the plants I have labeled D. lanceolata look just like the ones in all three pics, and I have a bunch of them. Other than coming from Palm Mountain Nursery, I have no other information on their origins.

I have some in the ground that are about 4 feet tall and are now multi-trunking.

[LJG]

I got a few of these too Phil. It was sold as "Moratia cerifiera" about three years ago. Classic.

It does has some color to it, more then my other Lanceolata's. So I kept it and just planted it this year.

[pogobob]

I got a few of these too Phil. It was sold as "Moratia cerifiera" about three years ago. Classic.

It does has some color to it, more then my other Lanceolata's. So I kept it and just planted it this year.

Hey Len, I too got some of those at the same time and from the same source, and I was pissed when I figured out that I got shuffled. But these have turned out to be very vigorous and colorfull palms! Somewhat similar to Lanceolata, but better. Now I'm thinking these are going to be another great dypsis for us and I wish I bought more.

[neoflora]

Long live Clark!!!

[Phil]

Len and Bob,

Yes, the exciting thing is the easier culture, more sun tolerance and better growth. Time will tell if it's superior. The extra color is a bonus.

Phil

[Hilo Jason]

I picked one of these up yesterday from Jungle Music. Looking forward to planting it this spring.

[Walter John]

How about this one ? Lots of white there, no reddish new leaf like my former lanceolata, plain green only, not that I'm complaining.

[MattyB]

Wal,

Your palm is the one that I've always known as D. lanceolata. This more recent batch of D. lanceolata that Phil and others mentioned is the more colorful one with some different characteristics. Len's plant shows this the best so far; great looking plant Len!

I planted my D. lanceolata and D. sp 'lanceonada' right next to each other just for this sort of discussion. I am smart. I have a deciduous Manihot tree for canopy in this area so they're a little confused with the back and forth of sun, shade, sun, shade, so they don't look as good as they would if the light levels remained constant.

Here's some pics:

Dypsis sp. 'lanceonada' on the left

Dypsis lanceolata on the right

Reverse angle

Dypsis lanceolata on the left

Dypsis sp. 'lanceonada' on the right

[MattyB]

So here's the pics of Dypsis lanceolata

It's mostly green with some white powder and orange speckling.

The leaflets are shorter and more cupped. They are pretty glossy too.

This is the same palm that Wal posted pics of above.

[MattyB]

Here's Dypsis sp. 'lanceonada'

Lot's of great redish, slightly fuzzy coloration.

The leaflets seem to be thinner, and less cupped, but because they are longer they have more of a recurve to them. Also, they don't seem to be as glossy as the D. lanceolata.

[avb]

Is anyone sure we aren't mixing up D. lanceolata and D. pembana? I don't have access to my POM book right now and am real curious about the similarities and differences between these two. I have some plants marked D. pembana that look very similar to the D. lanceolata's, and they are hard to tell apart. I usually use the lack of red color to distinguish those labeled D. pembana from the others.

"Palms For So. California" also describes D. lanceolata with reddish leaf bases and D. pembana looking "a bit like large D. lanceolata."

Another Dypsis mystery for the Palmtalk crew to thrash out over the next several months!

[MattyB]

I have two different D. Pembana, one green and one red, neither are this lanceonada thing.

For the record, the pembanas are only different colors when they are small seedlings. This lanceonada is keeping this red fuzz so far.

[Phil]

MattyB,

Thanks for those photos. It'll be fun to follow them over time.

Alan,

Quoting references like Palms for Southern California is a somewhat precarious thing to do. I want to describe why I feel this way below. And, this not only refers to this PSSC publication but also to everything I've ever written on palms.

One must look at how a reference was written and where the included information came from. Taxonomists like John Dransfield are on very solid ground. They go to the habitat, look at a species, gather herbarium specimens from a species and then determine the species name (from records) or give it a new name. Such an author is on solid ground (sort of) because what they describe what they see and compare all aspects with old records. With this, what they publish sort of becomes gospel. And it remains such until another taxonomist has another accepted opinion. Such taxonomists might not always agree and the field is almost always in a state of flux. But, their publications are the basis for what we all use as species descriptions. All of us, including even the taxonomists, begin with these descriptions and it evolves over time. I think Palms of Madagascar is the best example of this type of publication. There are journals dedicated to such work.

Other types of reference books, be it Palms for Southern California or a palm journal from a Chapter are another thing. Here we have someone who presents his "opinion" of what something looks like. He may have seen a plant that was in a garden and labeled as a certain species and describes what he sees. In almost every case, this person's opinion is not based on a scientific search of herbarium material. This might even be the case if someone visited a habitat, saw a palm he "thought" was Dypsis whatever, and then told us all about it. Can you see the problem with this?

My point here is that we all have to add a grain of salt to most reference or synopsis types of palm books/journals. We at PalmTalk are great examples of this. We give our opinions. We try to hash it out and learn from each other. But, mostly these are our opinions on the matter. If I state at my website that a certain species "looks like this", or "grows fast", or "is beautiful", it is only my opinion on the matter. I wish our Palms for Southern California were a scientifically backed publication, but it is not. At most, it has one editor who hasn't been to habitat or checked herbarium specimens. That was never his goal or purpose. He has merely tried to educate readers on general points and descriptions.

With all this said, I think discussions we have like this one are very useful. I am not really sure what "lanceonada" is. It may in fact be a lanceolata hybrid. Or, perhaps the green one is the hybrid. Who knows? But, it really doesn't matter as most of us are observing what we see, giving it a try in our garden, and going from there. If any of us wish to quote a reference. we have to go back to the basic bulding blocks of species descriptions. And, this would be the taxonomic descriptions based on study. If we don't do this, then it becomes a situation of "the blind leading the blind".

Well, that's my take on the issue of "references".

Phil

Phil

[avb]

You're preaching to the choir, Phil. I've gotten to the point I rarely believe labels anymore, especially anything proclaimed to be something difficult to get from Madagascar. But, like I said in my previous post, my POM is packed away at the moment and I can't reference it, so the PFSC book is all I've got to go on for now. None of us really know what anything is for sure, and if you think you know what's what, you don't know enough to know you don't really know yet. We're all standing on the edge of the huge cliff of ignorance, staring into the darkness below, and wondering "What do we do now?" As a good example, we've had the 10 year or so mystery of the "real" and "fakey" D. ambositrae, only recently resolving the "fakey" isn't ambositrae, but an unknown now named D. plumose. I still see people arguing over what is the "real" one.

Some of the plants in your photos on the Jungle Music site look remarkably similar to my red ones except for the white on the crownshafts, and none of mine are as mature as those in the photos.

I went out and took a good look at the plants labeled D. lanceolata and the D. pembana, and they fall into red ones as lanceolata and the green ones are labeled pembana. BUT, there is one with coloring in between the two, also labeled pembana and another labeled pembana from a different source than the rest that is a bit lighter green than all the other green ones.

[DoomsDave]

MattyB,

Thanks for those photos. It'll be fun to follow them over time.

Alan,

Quoting references like Palms for Southern California is a somewhat precarious thing to do. I want to describe why I feel this way below. And, this not only refers to this PSSC publication but also to everything I've ever written on palms.

One must look at how a reference was written and where the included information came from. Taxonomists like John Dransfield are on very solid ground. They go to the habitat, look at a species, gather herbarium specimens from a species and then determine the species name (from records) or give it a new name. Such an author is on solid ground (sort of) because what they describe what they see and compare all aspects with old records. With this, what they publish sort of becomes gospel. And it remains such until another taxonomist has another accepted opinion. Such taxonomists might not always agree and the field is almost always in a state of flux. But, their publications are the basis for what we all use as species descriptions. All of us, including even the taxonomists, begin with these descriptions and it evolves over time. I think Palms of Madagascar is the best example of this type of publication. There are journals dedicated to such work.

Other types of reference books, be it Palms for Southern California or a palm journal from a Chapter are another thing. Here we have someone who presents his "opinion" of what something looks like. He may have seen a plant that was in a garden and labeled as a certain species and describes what he sees. In almost every case, this person's opinion is not based on a scientific search of herbarium material. This might even be the case if someone visited a habitat, saw a palm he "thought" was Dypsis whatever, and then told us all about it. Can you see the problem with this?

My point here is that we all have to add a grain of salt to most reference or synopsis types of palm books/journals. We at PalmTalk are great examples of this. We give our opinions. We try to hash it out and learn from each other. But, mostly these are our opinions on the matter. If I state at my website that a certain species "looks like this", or "grows fast", or "is beautiful", it is only my opinion on the matter. I wish our Palms for Southern California were a scientifically backed publication, but it is not. At most, it has one editor who hasn't been to habitat or checked herbarium specimens. That was never his goal or purpose. He has merely tried to educate readers on general points and descriptions.

With all this said, I think discussions we have like this one are very useful. I am not really sure what "lanceonada" is. It may in fact be a lanceolata hybrid. Or, perhaps the green one is the hybrid. Who knows? But, it really doesn't matter as most of us are observing what we see, giving it a try in our garden, and going from there. If any of us wish to quote a reference. we have to go back to the basic bulding blocks of species descriptions. And, this would be the taxonomic descriptions based on study. If we don't do this, then it becomes a situation of "the blind leading the blind".

Well, that's my take on the issue of "references".

Phil

Phil

The question really boils down to:

how fine are the teeth on the comb?

[Dypsisdean]

I find this discussion interesting because of something I have noticed about how the non-scientists (of which I am one) among us identify palms. I have enough mystery palms in my gardens, and have had enough palm "experts" (non-scientists) come by for discussions, to notice a peculiar habit among us all.

We all key on different traits first, and lend differing levels of importance to them. Personally I key on color first. I can't help myself. I realize it is probably a very weak trait to key on, especially with juvenile Dypsis, but I can't resist. Some who come by my gardens have pointed things out when we discuss a mystery palm that I hadn't given any thought to. After many such discussions, I have learned different growers key on different traits than I typically do.

Looking at two palms, I may point out the differences in the petiole color or pattern, while another experienced grower will point out the differences in the length of the petiole. Some look first at the width or arrangement of the leaflets. Some may point out the recurving of a frond. Some will point out the presence of absence of ramenta. Some may examine the shape of the petiole first, noticing one is round, while another palm labeled the same has a grove. Some check a flower or seed. And I could go on.

So in this case, we seem to be keying on color. However, during an in depth discussion with a very knowledgeable grower, and looking at both of his several D. lanceolata and D. pembana, he pointed out how on one the leaflets were always on the same plane, and on the other they were not. And this held true through all of my subsequent examinations. Sorry, I can't remember which is which at the moment. But that wouldn't do us much good anyway until the palm in question gets up in size.

But colors, especially with Dypsis, can be really misleading. And I have been mislead many times with my inability to relegate this trait to a less important hierarchy. And Dypsis are not alone. I just couldn't believe the nice red Hyophorbe indica seedlings I had would turn out to be virtually the same as the green ones now that they have many feet of trunk. But they have.

So while there are palms with different color forms as adults (like Bismarkia), there are also palms with differing color forms as juveniles that end up looking pretty much the same as adults - especially Dypsis. And especially the moderate clumping Dypsis.

[LJG]

I think non-scientist focus on color because that is a key factor in palms you want in your garden. Thanks to the amazing variation among Dypsis you need to look at this factor when choosing a plant to put in your garden. Also slight differences in color at a young age can lead to big differences as an adult. If there are two palms of the same species side by side and one has more color and is certainly noticeable, I think it is a no brainier what people would pick.

Also as with color, so does leaflet arrangements and petiole lengths change in age. So it is hard to really key on any one thing and think it will carry thought to adulthood in dypsis.

[Phil]

Alan, Dean and Len,

Thanks for your comments. This is an interesting topic and I can't figure out whether, as time goes by, I'm getting smarter on species or more confused.

I find that, on a lot of the Madagascar species, I now call them a "complex", i.e. the "Dypsis baronii complex", the "Dypsis decipiens complex", etc. I say this because one comes to know exactly what a species looks like and then along comes another that doesn't fit. It could be color, tomentum, leaf shape, leaflet orientation, etc. As all of our children look different, are we being unfair to think that all of a given species has to look the same? Or, are they all just "kids", each one a bit different? Are we discussing it mostly with Malagassy species because it is with this group that we are taking the most critical look? A taxonomist in the field would solve the problem by looking at the flowers. That is their stable datum. John D. once told me that Pinanaga coronata and P. kuhlii at the same species. I said, "John, how can that be? Look at these differences....". But, from his point of view, the flowers were the same.

If you imagine the dilemma of a taxonomist in the field, he could get very perplexed if he got hung up on morphological differences of the leaf, tomentum, leaflet shape, etc. So, to maintain sanity and clarity, he has to have something to always fall back on. And, this stable datum is the appearance of the reproductive parts.

Bringing this all back to "Dypsis lanceonada", the possibility is that it's just "one of the complex". It's sort of like the "red petiole, white crownshaft" Dypsis decipiens I have been growing. These are still a Dypsis decipiens, part of the species' own complex. It would be fun for a taxonomist (not usually lurking here) to chime in on how they approach this problem.

Phil

[BS Man about Palms]

I appreciate color, but have lowered it on my "importance scale" because of MY observations, the color seems to be affected by humidity and shading. Thus, and from my observations, a palm in the shade on the coast versus a palm in the sun inland will have completely different color!

2.5 cents worth

[Phil]

Come on Bill,

That's at least a nickel comment.

Phil

5 minutes later: Thought about, a quarter at least.

And to Wal below, an Aussie Dollar.

[Walter John]

This one of mine was supposedly from seed from a plant on the island of Mayotte.

That's 10 cent value right there.

[Dypsisdean]

I appreciate color, but have lowered it on my "importance scale" because of MY observations, the color seems to be affected by humidity and shading. Thus, and from my observations, a palm in the shade on the coast versus a palm in the sun inland will have completely different color!

2.5 cents worth

While we all recognize the differences that growing conditions and age make in the appearance of a palm, I was directing the main thrust of my comments at palms growing under the same conditions, and of the same age. I believe Phil was comparing his D. lanceonada with his D. lanceolata growing in the same greenhouse, with the same soil, same water, same soil, same age, etc. - but exhibiting different coloration.

And I was referring to palms in my garden, with mostly the same conditions as well. For example, I have two palms side by side, and to me they appear different, but it was mostly because of how they grew from seedlings. But I couldn't get most visitors to recognize the difference. To them they were the same. But one very astute PalmTalker pointed out to me that the leaflets on one were held at a completely different angle than the other. And while I was basing my observations on this unusual but characteristic flecking on the younger petioles of one and not the other, he pointed out this glaring leaflet difference that I hadn't even noticed previously - and apparently neither had many others.

And as we walked around the garden, he pointed out differences in the petiole length between D. baronii, and other similar palms in that complex, that I hadn't really keyed on before either. And since they all experienced very similar growing conditions, sometimes even side by side, this is why I started paying attention to the different traits that other knowledgeable growers keyed on first during observations for IDs.

[LJG]

I appreciate color, but have lowered it on my "importance scale" because of MY observations, the color seems to be affected by humidity and shading. Thus, and from my observations, a palm in the shade on the coast versus a palm in the sun inland will have completely different color!

2.5 cents worth

Having been on many a palm purchases with you, I know your comments are false Your nickname is is Mr. color.

[avb]

I appreciate color, but have lowered it on my "importance scale" because of MY observations, the color seems to be affected by humidity and shading. Thus, and from my observations, a palm in the shade on the coast versus a palm in the sun inland will have completely different color!

2.5 cents worth

Having been on many a palm purchases with you, I know your comments are false Your nickname is is Mr. color.

You should see the purple MGA he has growing in his back yard.

[BS Man about Palms]

Can't see it anymore, the weeds are 6' tall...or seem like it! lol

[MattyB]

Bill, I'm getting you a goat/girlfriend for christmas. That should solve all your problems

[Tyrone]

All my large lanceolata's look like the first picture. I germinated about 150 from RPS. I had an earlier slower batch from RPS which are just miles behind. The large ones were taken delivery of seed in Jan 06 and some are now 2m tall, the smaller ones were from an earlier batch of seed. This larger variety do have the tomentum all over them and colour. They also open green leaves rather than orange, whereas the one I bought from north Queensland often opens orange leaves.

Still I can't seem to sell any 2m (6ft) tall clumping D lanceolata at our Palm show and sale this weekend. I only want $29 each. People seem to be more impressed with a $5 C seifrizii or a $2 C elegans. I don't get it.

Best regards

Tyrone

[amazon exotics]

Bill, I'm getting you a goat/girlfriend for christmas. That should solve all your problems

more like a sheep lol

[realarch]

I'm not sure if this is a 'lanceonada' or not. It looks similar, but it has so much more white in the stem than the previous pics posted. It has the D. lanceolata leaves, but the color is so different. I thought it might

be a D. pembana, but the terminal leaflets are way different. I acquired these as D.ambositrae, but I'm pretty sure it isn't that.

[MattyB]

I'm almost 100% positive that this is the D. sp 'lanceonada' Tim. The white powder is more developed because your plant is older and has that large crownshaft now. What a beauty!

[Dypsisdean]

I'm almost 100% positive that this is the D. sp 'lanceonada' Tim. The white powder is more developed because your plant is older and has that large crownshaft now. What a beauty!

I was going to say that Matty. But based on the observation that Tim's plant seems to have more color in the petiole than most D. lanceolata I have seen. And the fact the D. lanceonada has such colorful ones.

[MattyB]

your but got in the way of me understanding your comment

[realarch]

Muchas gracias guys. Look forward to what this is going to look like a few years from now.

[Dypsisdean]

your but got in the way of me understanding your comment

You're right - my but did get in the way. Pretend it's not there.

[Hilo Jason]

I thought I would bump this thread with some pictures of a palm that I bought today that I think might be along the line of this Dypsis Lanceonada. The tag was labeled Lanceolata and was grown from seed in May of 2008. So in 3.5 years its gone from seed to a large 5 gallon plant. I don't have a lot of experience growing palms for seed, but that seems pretty quick to me.

Here are the pics:

A shot of the entire plant:

Close-up of the fuzz:

And this one is next to a Lanceolata that I have in the ground which was planted from as a 5 gallon in April of 2010.

Now I know that there's can always be some variance in these dypsis, so maybe it is just Lanceolata showing some color and fuzz. Regardless of what it is, I look forward to it getting planted out this Spring and adding to the overall feel of my yard.

[Moose]

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2011‎ ‎12‎:‎57‎:‎15‎, BS Man about Palms said:

I appreciate color, but have lowered it on my "importance scale" because of MY observations, the color seems to be affected by humidity and shading. Thus, and from my observations, a palm in the shade on the coast versus a palm in the sun inland will have completely different color!

 

 

2.5 cents worth

What is your $1 dollar worth? Was the Dypsis lanceonada mystery resolved? Was the secret unlocked?